i listened to the house videos and Holt tabled the bill but announced he would bring it back next year. The bill required that any such tape be turned over to law enforcement and ulimately destroyed. During the proceedings Holt asked if anyone had any questions about the bill, and one of the reps replied he didnt have any questions about the bill but wondered why Holt would back it. That gave me a chuckle.
very disturbing, sunridge. why are perpetrators being protected ?
Let’s say you have a big grudge against Smart Pak. You apply, and get hired, all the while knowing your intent is to prove they do X. So you get in, you might not see x happening, so you create situations where x occurs… or you film or record fellow associates talking about committing X, or you actually DO catch them doing X.
Then you run off and give it to the third party to sue Smart Pak for committing X.
There’s whistle-blowing in the purest sense, when you realize your company where you already work is doing X, and you tell on them to the feds or HSUS or whomever. And there is seeking and engaging in employment for the purpose of rooting out X.
Hence the new 10K bounty from the HSUS, right, for others seeking to come forward and report offenses? You didn’t go to work at Barn 123 in order to do them harm, but now you’ll turn 'em in for 10k.
I can understand why the latter is a slippery slope.
The $10,000 was not started this year.
what of the REST of what I said?
I may be wrong on the bounty being new- either way- if I worked for Bad Trainer since 2006, but now I learn that 10K is coming my way - that loot offsets my turning Bad Trainer in…so I can move and go work somewhere else that no one knows me.
I’m actually pretty ok with that- it’s fine. I don’y mean ‘the latter’ to point to the bounty…I’m refering to asshats joining your company for the SOLE intent of hurting your business.
SO: if you hired someone to bake cookies in your bakery, whom you later learned joined your business for the SOLE purpose of hurting your cookie business- that is OK with you?
Forget the horses- and think about the Big Picture. If I HATE local Dr ABC, I can get hired into her office and find a badly documented chart, or some charts…all of which are purely accidental … well, I’m not there to educate or audit, I’m there to destroy. that is OK with you?
Ummmmm. It is very obvious that you can not compare the two. Mr McConnell is and was a criminal before the employee went to work there.
We are all subject to this scrutiny in my line of work. They called auditors and agents. They scrutinize everything we do looking for a crime, a t not crossed or an I not dotted or worse.
And WE pay them to do it.
When you are employed in an field that carries with it a fiduciary capacity - it is the norm to be closely and secretly scrutinized.
Should we also do away with DQP? Aren’t they also looking to put folks out of the ring?
ANd that is the purpose of any reward - to turn the bad guys in.
The bill is stupid IMO
Auditors and agents are, by their very nature, disinterested third parties.
You know who they are and they have to show ID and/or have a contract to do such business.
And if you get in trouble, you get in trouble. pay your fine, correct your process, and go forward.
“As introduced, creates a new misdemeanor offense for a person who applies for employment with the intent to cause economic damage to the employer by recording on the premises of the employer and releasing such recordings to a third party."
Auditors and agents, and the DQPs, are not applying for employment with the intent to cause economic damage to the employer. I’ve had horses inspected by the DQPs, they were there to review what exists. Same with chart audits, show me what exists, show me your processes.
They are hired to audit and review what exists.
Now, hire someone who wants to find flaw and bring you financial harm.
And you just think they just work as an admin assistant, or jr accountant. Or Senior Executive. But they are here to hurt you, without your knowledge.
Auditor, meet Apple. Hello, Orange.
You are cleverly sidestepping my very direct question.
No. It does not make me uncomfortable at all. I answered it directly. Where do you see a side step? Who was exposed as you say? I doubt it happened.
Unless you think you can legislate disgruntled employees??? This law is stupid.
No burnt cookies in evidence.
OH and forgot to add - there are plenty of “non compete” and “confidentiality” business laws that could can and are used by most businesses to prevent competitor harm.
But it will not protect them from crime.
McConnell meet bill &^%$#$
See what I mean now???
No, I don’t. And I disagree with how you read the law. I don’t believe you understand what I mean when explaining the plain differences between an agent you hired to review things, and someone hired with ulterior motives.
All the ??? in the world can’t help me understand your jumbled, albeit impassioned, reasoning. Non compete doesn’t apply. Confidentiality, perhaps. But I don’t know any barns with confidentiality clauses. Except Parelli lol
I’ll be fine if he rots in jail. this is not about the microcosm around Mr. McConnell. In the long view, I personally I just don’t see the hullabaloo over the law.
I am fine with legitimate whistle blowing by so called ‘disgruntled’ employees. Some employERS are criminals. No problem.
I am NOT fine with people coming on board with a vendetta and a hidden agenda. And that being an ok thing to do.
“As introduced, creates a new misdemeanor offense for a person who applies for employment with the intent to cause economic damage to the employer by recording on the premises of the employer and releasing such recordings to a third party."
At best - this “law” needs a good lawyer to do a good rewrite.
At best - this sort of thing (eg - Steve Jobs putting a mole in Microsoft) - would be a civil matter - not criminal.
But I know nothing of corporate law.
I just get to vote now and then.
[QUOTE=katarine;6430504]
I am fine with legitimate whistle blowing by so called ‘disgruntled’ employees. Some employERS are criminals. No problem.
I am NOT fine with people coming on board with a vendetta and a hidden agenda. And that being an ok thing to do.[/QUOTE]
I think HSUS did what other legitimate agencies (APHIS) lacked the funding to do. But I do think McConnell and the like should not have the protection that law would provide. I think you (and whoever thought up this law) have no examples other than HSUS and the like who apparently have the funding to do what USDA would like to do.
You betcha if they could, Mr Gipson would love to do walk throughs on the farms and not just at the shows. You and I both have little doubt they would find some hot pasterns and lord knows what.
But no funding.
Have you seen the UC Davis recommendations on stall size? I think a 15.1 horse is supposed to have a 14X14 stall.
How big is G’s stall? Don’t answer he’s turned out- do you know anyone with 14X14 stall for a 15.1 horse- not by accident, but on purpose?
Be careful what you wish for.
[QUOTE=katarine;6430536]
Have you seen the UC Davis recommendations on stall size? I think a 15.1 horse is supposed to have a 14X14 stall.
How big is G’s stall? Don’t answer he’s turned out- do you know anyone with 14X14 stall for a 15.1 horse- not by accident, but on purpose?
Be careful what you wish for.[/QUOTE]
Are you posting on the right thread? Not sure who G is. Is that like X=Y+C?? You OK???:lol:
I thought you were also a poster another board who goes by another name, whose horse is nicknamed G. My apologies.
Here are the standards. Want to fund HSUS to inspect your barn?
The problem is the line is now deliberately blurred. Hell real genuine hero whistle blowers have little protection. Even with the law on their side. I can think of several off the top of my head that made headlines their lives in tatters for doing the right thing. The company simply had more money and power.
This law in it’s design is to PROTECT criminal behavior not the innocent.
Meh. This whole country is effed. Chock full of legal criminals.
[QUOTE=hurleycane;6430492]
No. It does not make me uncomfortable at all. I answered it directly. Where do you see a side step? Who was exposed as you say? I doubt it happened.
Unless you think you can legislate disgruntled employees??? This law is stupid.
No burnt cookies in evidence.[/QUOTE]
Ever hear of wiretaps? They are kind of “old school” but are still around. Would you be comfortable with a legal environment where anybody with a grudge against you could tap your phone anytime they wanted just to see what you were up to? And if they heard something criminal turn it in (with or without a reward)?
How would you feel if someone routinely taped your conversations with them without your knowledge or consent (under the U.S. and most states if one person consents to recording a conversation then it’s legal).
How about someone sitting in a car across the street from your house and taking photos with a long lens of you every time you came out of your front door? Or sitting in a tree stand so that they can photograph everything you do in your back yard?
What about them photographing, with a long lens, your electric meter to see if you are using a lot of KW (and that meaning your growing pot in your basement)?
Or some one planting a camera in your barn and surreptitiously monitoring you every time you pull your horse up to work them? And, of course, having some cameras in your arena, along trails you ride, etc.?
The Fourth Amendment prevents government from doing this without a warrant. States vary in what they will allow into evidence that comes into the hands of law enforcement from private citizens.
Is there a right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution (or the Constitution of the State of TN)? This question generates a bunch of litigation in both places.
Putting limits on the activities of private citizens that mirror those put on government will limit opportunities for prosecution. That means that some guilty folks will walk. But having had some personal experience with “zealots” I’m not so sure that some limits are not reasonable. Whether Holt’s bill is good or bad I have no opinion.
Be careful what you wish for. We are past 1984, but Big Brother is more than just a TV series.
G.
[QUOTE=katarine;6430547]
I thought you were also a poster another board who goes by another name, whose horse is nicknamed G. My apologies.
Here are the standards. Want to fund HSUS to inspect your barn?
Oh! LOL… I know who you are referring to though - not me. My horse is the ner do well white one and I have been a fan of yours for a long long time - even though we do not always agree. 
Listen - IMO there are rules and regs every where. And at any time anything we do can be called into question. Part of living in a society. Heck any of us can be and are harassed by others for what ever suits their whim, bueracracy (sp) or religion. Be it in work, in play, in the car, in the barn or show ring. And sure some folks will make a rule for everything - like this law being discussed. Like the way I want to see LEGAL limits on the stacks and to see the chain done away with.
But fear mongering is just that and this roundy round discussion will come up any time anyone wants to put limits or restrictions on activities.
But stall size has nothing to do with a short stack and soring. ANd the slaughter of horses Fairfax described is not something any of us would want for our own.
The only way to stop the ugliness that is done to the gaited horse is through laws. Got to make them tough and clear cut. Cause it is so obviously cruel and it is painfully clear gaited societies and shows can not spot a sored horse from a sound horse cause they fell for the labored mechanical gait.
ANd don’t tell me I make no sense and I spew passion.
It is painfully clear this is a sick mess - no matter who shot the video or put McConnell in the winner’s circle.
BTW - who were the judges at that WGC Celebration that tied the b@$^%&d??? We need to put them in the hall of fame. Cause you know it was not his first time on the soring or shocking or whacking.
ANd there are others for sure.
I have no problem with whistle blowers blowing their whistles. And if they can earn a few bucks by doing it, no problem with that.
I wouldn’t have any problem with a person going undercover as a new employee and documenting illegal practices that are going on.
However, I don’t think it is okay for someone to go undercover as a new employee and set up their new employer to do something illegal that the employer wasn’t doing on their own without the intrusion of the “undercover” employee.
Remember John Delorean? He never would have become involved in the cocaine smuggling if he hadn’t been approached by, and set up by, an FBI informant. What happened to Delorean was entrapment. And I think he was found not guilty because of that entrapment when he went to trial on drug smuggling charges.
Sheilah
See?? There you go - entrapment laws are already there to do the job.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
